Reviewed by Danny the Demented
Updated 20 February 2012
I fell asleep during the movie. The last time I did that at a theater was when I saw "The Expendable". That's right, the f-ing Expendable....... so suffice to say....yeah I didn’t enjoy this 2 hr long bore called "Hugo" either.
"Hugo" is legendary director Martin Scorsese's first attempt at a 3D feature. It tells the story of a boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a train station in Paris after he lost his father in a tragic accident. He lives within the walls and keeps the clocks in the station running all the while tries to find the parts to fix an automaton (or robot, if you don't want to be fancy) left behind by his father. In doing so he encounters Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), a mysterious toy store keeper and his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz of the "Kick Ass" fame). When he runs into trouble with Melies, Hugo finds out that he needs not only to save himself from loneliness and obscurity, but also Melies, who is haunted by the past and can't find happiness that once upon a time was in his grasp.
I really wanted to like this movie, truly I did. After having saw three crappy-to-bad movies in the past three weeks, I put my movie fate in the hands of Mr. Goodfellas Scorsese, and he failed me. I fell asleep. Repeat: I FELL ASLEEP!! I almost never do that as I take movies very seriously. Here's a fun little story: I was in line for a movie about a month ago and a bunch of noisy high schoolers were lining up in front of me. They were having a hearty discussion on what makes a movie "fun". I smiled and tapped one of them on the shoulder and said "young lady, do you think movie is fun?" She answered back with a confused why-is-this-dude-talking-to-me-and-should-I-yell-for-help face ".....of course, movies are entertaining". I gave her a glare, slowly shook my head and said "No my child. Movies ain't fun. Movie, is, WAR". I subsequently punched her in the face with all my might and turned and walked away. So you see how serious I am about movies. I ain't here to fudge around. (ok, this story didn't exactly happen in a realistic sense but it did happen in my head, that has got to count for something).
So many flaws, where should one begin? The film is painfully long but even with its long running time; Mr. Scorsese managed to squeeze in too many subplots and ended up with no interesting subplots and a weak/stretched main storyline. What he should have done was to eliminate all subplots and just focus on the story he was trying to tell. There were characters in the movie that if removed from the film, nothing would have changed. They were unnecessary and uninteresting characters that we could've done without (I am looking at you Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Richard Griffiths, Frances de la Tour, and Christopher Lee). In fact, nobody mattered in the film except for Hugo, Georges Melies and to a lesser degree Isabelle and Mama Jeanne (Helen McCrory). It's weird why Scorsese hired all these known and capable actors to play such minor and irrelevant roles. Cameos are very in this year I guess, for the life of me I don't understand fashion.
The relationship between Hugo and Isabelle was never developed. They became friends within 10 seconds without so much as a montage. The kind-of-villain Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen) was not even a little menacing. At no point was I worried about what he will do to Hugo. Gustav's subplot with the flower shop girl was irrelevant, so was the love story between the cafe owner and the newspaper seller. The bookstore owner served no purpose as well, why on earth would anyone put a character like this in a movie and let him contribute nothing to the story? Hired Christopher Lee to play him no less, preposterous! I am not spoiling anything for you, trust me, so spare me the why-no-spoiler-alert crap would ya.
Martin Scorsese clearly knows how to make a movie. "Hugo" is beautifully shot and the 3D effect is decent (though I am not a fan of 3D movie). But the movie is mediocre and nothing more. Scorsese is at the point of his career where he can make ANYTHING and people will feel almost obligated to give it praise. It's almost as if the critics are bound by some magical laws to worship everything Scorsese conjures up (How else would you explain "The Departed" winning critical acclaim? And now Hugo? COME ON!!). I am sure that if Scorsese comes into my room and craps on my bed, slaps me and leave, critics will still rave about it and give it reviews like "best slap ever! and did you see that beautifully shaped poop? Scorsese shits a masterpiece!" or "Crap and Slap, the new standards for the Academy Awards!". He might have earned the right, but that doesn't make Hugo anything more than a 5 out of 10. In other words, Hugo is no Jeremy Lin.
Would this review stop Hugo from getting its ass kissed? No. But this review might save you from a wasteful trip to the cinema and if I can achieve that, I will be able to sleep soundly at night. Really I don't ask for much, all I want to do is help. I am like superman without the cape, and the muscles, and the ability to fly, and the.....anyway. My name is Danny and I endorse this message.
"Hugo" is legendary director Martin Scorsese's first attempt at a 3D feature. It tells the story of a boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a train station in Paris after he lost his father in a tragic accident. He lives within the walls and keeps the clocks in the station running all the while tries to find the parts to fix an automaton (or robot, if you don't want to be fancy) left behind by his father. In doing so he encounters Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), a mysterious toy store keeper and his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz of the "Kick Ass" fame). When he runs into trouble with Melies, Hugo finds out that he needs not only to save himself from loneliness and obscurity, but also Melies, who is haunted by the past and can't find happiness that once upon a time was in his grasp.
I really wanted to like this movie, truly I did. After having saw three crappy-to-bad movies in the past three weeks, I put my movie fate in the hands of Mr. Goodfellas Scorsese, and he failed me. I fell asleep. Repeat: I FELL ASLEEP!! I almost never do that as I take movies very seriously. Here's a fun little story: I was in line for a movie about a month ago and a bunch of noisy high schoolers were lining up in front of me. They were having a hearty discussion on what makes a movie "fun". I smiled and tapped one of them on the shoulder and said "young lady, do you think movie is fun?" She answered back with a confused why-is-this-dude-talking-to-me-and-should-I-yell-for-help face ".....of course, movies are entertaining". I gave her a glare, slowly shook my head and said "No my child. Movies ain't fun. Movie, is, WAR". I subsequently punched her in the face with all my might and turned and walked away. So you see how serious I am about movies. I ain't here to fudge around. (ok, this story didn't exactly happen in a realistic sense but it did happen in my head, that has got to count for something).
So many flaws, where should one begin? The film is painfully long but even with its long running time; Mr. Scorsese managed to squeeze in too many subplots and ended up with no interesting subplots and a weak/stretched main storyline. What he should have done was to eliminate all subplots and just focus on the story he was trying to tell. There were characters in the movie that if removed from the film, nothing would have changed. They were unnecessary and uninteresting characters that we could've done without (I am looking at you Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Richard Griffiths, Frances de la Tour, and Christopher Lee). In fact, nobody mattered in the film except for Hugo, Georges Melies and to a lesser degree Isabelle and Mama Jeanne (Helen McCrory). It's weird why Scorsese hired all these known and capable actors to play such minor and irrelevant roles. Cameos are very in this year I guess, for the life of me I don't understand fashion.
The relationship between Hugo and Isabelle was never developed. They became friends within 10 seconds without so much as a montage. The kind-of-villain Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen) was not even a little menacing. At no point was I worried about what he will do to Hugo. Gustav's subplot with the flower shop girl was irrelevant, so was the love story between the cafe owner and the newspaper seller. The bookstore owner served no purpose as well, why on earth would anyone put a character like this in a movie and let him contribute nothing to the story? Hired Christopher Lee to play him no less, preposterous! I am not spoiling anything for you, trust me, so spare me the why-no-spoiler-alert crap would ya.
Martin Scorsese clearly knows how to make a movie. "Hugo" is beautifully shot and the 3D effect is decent (though I am not a fan of 3D movie). But the movie is mediocre and nothing more. Scorsese is at the point of his career where he can make ANYTHING and people will feel almost obligated to give it praise. It's almost as if the critics are bound by some magical laws to worship everything Scorsese conjures up (How else would you explain "The Departed" winning critical acclaim? And now Hugo? COME ON!!). I am sure that if Scorsese comes into my room and craps on my bed, slaps me and leave, critics will still rave about it and give it reviews like "best slap ever! and did you see that beautifully shaped poop? Scorsese shits a masterpiece!" or "Crap and Slap, the new standards for the Academy Awards!". He might have earned the right, but that doesn't make Hugo anything more than a 5 out of 10. In other words, Hugo is no Jeremy Lin.
Would this review stop Hugo from getting its ass kissed? No. But this review might save you from a wasteful trip to the cinema and if I can achieve that, I will be able to sleep soundly at night. Really I don't ask for much, all I want to do is help. I am like superman without the cape, and the muscles, and the ability to fly, and the.....anyway. My name is Danny and I endorse this message.
No comments:
Post a Comment